Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41407690›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Current protected areas provide limited benefits for European river biodiversity.

James S Sinclair, Rachel Stubbington, Ellen A R Welti, Jukka Aroviita, Nathan J Baker, Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles, Zoltán Csabai, David Cunillera-Montcusí, Sami Domisch, Martial Ferréol and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

James S SinclairDepartment of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany. james.sinclair270@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0787-7342
Rachel StubbingtonSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8475-5109
Ellen A R WeltiDivision of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6944-3422
Jukka AroviitaFreshwater and Marine Solutions, Finnish Environment Institute, Oulu, Finland.
Nathan J BakerState Scientific Research Institute Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7948-106X
Miguel Cañedo-ArgüellesSHE2 Research Group, FEHM-Lab (Freshwater Ecology, Hydrology and Management), Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Barcelona, Spain.
Zoltán CsabaiDepartment of Hydrobiology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1700-2574
David Cunillera-MontcusíInstitute of Aquatic Ecology, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8666-346X
Sami DomischLeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8127-9335
Martial FerréolINRAE, UR RiverLy, centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, Cedex, France.
Mathieu FlouryINRAE, UR RiverLy, centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, Cedex, France.
Marie Anne Eurie ForioDepartment of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Peter L M GoethalsDepartment of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Alexia M González-FerrerasIHCantabria - Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental de la Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1039-6737
Kaisa-Leena HuttunenNature Solutions, Finnish Environment Institute, Oulu, Finland.
Richard K JohnsonDepartment of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-6563
Lenka KuglerováDepartment of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
Aitor LarrañagaDepartment of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0185-9154
Timo MuotkaEcology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Riku PaavolaOulanka Research Station, University of Oulu Infrastructure Platform, Kuusamo, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4708-1413
Petr PařilDepartment of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7471-997X
Jes J RasmussenDepartment of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5932-3125
Ralf B SchäferResearch Center One Health Ruhr, University Alliance Ruhr & Faculty for Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-1701
Rudy VannevelFlanders Environment Agency (VMM), Aalst, Belgium.
Gábor VárbíróDepartment of Tisza Research, Institute of Aquatic Ecology, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5907-3472
Martin WilkesSchool of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Peter HaaseDepartment of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-0438

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) #871128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protected areas are a principal conservation tool for addressing biodiversity loss. Such protection is especially needed in freshwaters, given their greater biodiversity losses compared to terrestrial and marine ecosystems. However, broad-scale evaluations of protected area effectiveness for freshwater biodiversity are lacking. Here, we provide a continental-scale analysis of the relationship between protected areas and freshwater biodiversity using 1,754 river invertebrate community time series sampled between 1986 and 2022 across ten European countries. Protected areas primarily benefited poor-quality communities (indicative of higher human impacts) that were protected, or that gained protection, across a substantial proportion of their upstream catchment. Protection had little to no influence on moderate- and high-quality communities, although high-quality communities potentially provide less scope for effect. Our results reveal the overall limited effectiveness of current protected areas for freshwater biodiversity, likely because they are typically designed and managed to achieve terrestrial conservation goals. Broadly improving effectiveness for freshwater biodiversity requires catchment-scale management approaches involving larger and more continuous upstream protection, and efforts to address remaining stressors. These approaches would also benefit connected terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, thus generally helping bend the curve of global biodiversity loss.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesRiversAnimalsEcosystemEuropeFresh WaterInvertebrates

Identifiers

PMID41407690
PMCPMC12711900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.